Reference no: EM131624779

Question: Mini-Case: Ethics. Refer to the mini-case "Andersen: An Obstruction of Justice?" on page C1 and respond to questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7.

Questions 1: Look up the term corrupt in the dictionary. What is its definition? Was corrupt appropriately applied to the actions of Arthur Andersen?

Questions 2: The issues that overturned the Andersen verdict were based on faulty jury instructions, not on whether Andersen was in fact guilty or innocent. Based on the information in this case and other information you know, do you believe Andersen violated the law?

Questions 3: Do you believe that the Supreme Court's opinion overturning the lower court's decision was appropriate?

Questions 4: Should the SEC and the Department of Justice have tried Andersen as a firm or should they have targeted specific individuals who had engaged in acts the two bodies believed to be unlawful?

Questions 5: Although Andersen's conviction was overturned, do you believe that its employees acted in an ethical manner?

Questions 6: Comment on the actions of David Duncan and Nancy Temple. Which of these parties do you believe was more responsible for the Andersen saga?

Questions 7: The class action lawsuit against Andersen also named the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Merrill Lynch, and Credit Suisse Group as codefendants with Andersen. Why would the plaintiffs name so many entities in their lawsuit? Merrill Lynch and Credit Suisse asked a U.S. appeals court to rule that the complaint should not have been certified as a class action suit. Why would these entities make such a claim?